Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1230 (AP)

Yarragundia Sowmya Sri v. Gurijala Venkata Rao

2024-08-30

B SYAMSUNDER

body2024
ORDER : B Syamsunder, J. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Mr.Haranadha Raju Katta, as well as, learned counsel Mr.Y.Ramesh, representing on behalf of Mr.Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘CPC’) seeking transfer of O.S. No.69 of 2021 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole of Prakasam District, to Senior Civil Judge Court, Sattenapalli of Guntur District, on the ground that now she is residing in her parents house at Sattenapalli Town of Guntur Judicial District. 3. The petitioner submits that respondent filed O.S. No.69 of 2021 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole of Prakasam District, basing on forged promissory note on the ground that it has been executed by her mother-in-law on 17.01.2019 by borrowing Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) from the respondent. It is also the contention of the petitioner that she is the only legal heir of her mother-in-law by name Smt.G.Devi, who died on 21.05.2021, due to covid-19 and her father-in-law and her husband were also died during covid-19 pandemic period. The main contention of the petitioner is that her mother-in-law was a government employee died due to covid-19 and to knock away retirement benefits of her mother-in-law, respondent herein is no other than brother of her mother-in-law forged the promissory note dated 17.01.2019 and filed suit. The petitioner submits that she is financially weak and depending upon her parents, due to that, she is not in a position to travel a distance of 175 Kms from Sattenapalli Town to Ongole Town and she is also not having any male assistance and if she attend the court at Ongole, respondent being a male person may threaten her. She prays to allow the petition. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Smt.G.Devi, who died on 21.05.2021, due to covid-19 and after her death, the respondent who is no other than brother of Smt.G.Devi, forged the promissory note dated 17.01.2019 for Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) and filed suit pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Ongole of Prakasam District, wherein petitioner filed her written statement. He would further submit that now the petitioner is residing in her parents house at Sattenapalli Town and she has no source of income to bear travel and stay expenses to put forth her defence in a false suit filed by the respondent with an intention to knock away the properties and death benefits of mother-in-law of the petitioner. He prays to allow the petition. 5. The learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that respondent filed suit basing on promissory note dated 17.01.2019 against the petitioner being legal representative of deceased borrower sought decree against the estate of deceased, wherein petitioner engaged a counsel and filed written statement. He would further submit that in O.S. No.69 of 2021 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Ongole of Prakasam District, trial has been commenced wherein plaintiff’s side evidence already closed and the case is coming up for the cross-examination of petitioner as D.W.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent that when the trial of the suit already commenced, which is at the advanced stage of hearing, request of the petitioner to transfer the case cannot be considered. He prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is: “Whether there are grounds to transfer O.S. No.69 of 2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Ongole of Prakasam District, to Civil Judge Court (Senior Division), Sattenapalli of Guntur District?” 7. Point: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of CPC, which reads as under: “24. Point: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of CPC, which reads as under: “24. General Power of transfer and withdrawal:- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same, or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section,- (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding’ includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. [(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it”.] (a) This Court in Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Pulletikurhti Varaha Chandra Bose and Others, (2004) 5 ALT 209 held which reads as under: “Necessity for transfer of suits from one Court to another, would arise if only there exists any similarity of causes of action or commonality of parties. When such situation does not exist, the relief claimed for transfer of the suit, cannot be granted”. (b) The Hon?ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. When such situation does not exist, the relief claimed for transfer of the suit, cannot be granted”. (b) The Hon?ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 659 held which reads as follows: “Section 24 C.P.C. confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings “at any stage” either on an application by any party or suo motu. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.” 8. In the present case, the respondent alleged in the plaint that cause of action for filing suit for recovery of money from the estate of original borrower arose within the jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole of Prakasam District, due to that, he filed O.S. No.69 of 2021 before Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole of Prakasam District, seeking decree against the estate of Smt.G.Devi, in the hands of the petitioner being a legal heir. It is also not in dispute that trial of O.S. No.69 of 2021 is already commenced wherein plaintiff’s side evidence is closed and the matter is coming up for cross-examination of petitioner as D.W.1 in the suit. When original suit filed by the respondent is at the advanced stage of hearing, this Court is of an opinion that it is not a fit case to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the case. Even petitioner being a defendant in the suit need not appear before the court in O.S. No.69 of 2021 for each and every adjournment and her appearance is required only at the time of recording of her evidence before the court. The petitioner has also not stated any specific incidence of alleged threat on the part of the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the case. 9. In the result, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole of Prakasam District, is hereby directed to dispose of O.S. No.69 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court in the present petition. No costs. 9. In the result, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole of Prakasam District, is hereby directed to dispose of O.S. No.69 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court in the present petition. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The interim stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.